OK, I was unclear. Here's the long version and we can go thru this step by step to make it easier to examine our thinking together. IM2 said--
My assumption (which may be incorrect) was that IM2 was saying that today there's a group that IM2 calls "white men" that has unfairly taken "preference and privilege" from others. This I find difficult to translate into tangible terms. "Race" is an us-versus-them concept and it has no basis in today's anthropological community (
from here):
Most anthropologists believe that categorizing human groups by race has no biological basis. 16. Most anthropologists believe that categorizing human groups by race has no genetic basis.
--and at the same time I understand that there are many good people who say that the races do exist. This is why I like to be very clear on what we're saying, better still that we
agree on what we're saying. OK, so assuming there really is some "white men" group, saying that they took preference and privilege from others seems (to me) hard to substantiate. My take is that the statement by IM2 is very hard to put in rational terms, even while it works nicely into a food fight.
Now, it's a big habit of folks on these threads to quarrel, which I don't like to do. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong w/ it, but it's just that I'm not very good at it. Add to the mix is the fact that it's virtually impossible to think clearly while quarreling. That's why I'd be grateful if you and I could be on the same side here.
This is a long discourse, u can see why I abridged my first comment at the risk of clarity